We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Orbitor re post at 09.58 I think that when companies and States sign up to ICSID they agree that ICSID has the final say over the award or annulment, ICSDID therefore is its own master and not subjugated to outside courts ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Nobody is saying that ICSID are subjugated to outside courts !. However they DO have to stick to their own rules !
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1fb1926f-245b-4162-8848-f19a30101c13&utm_source=Lexology United Kingdom April 25 2017 The court has power, under s.68 of the 1996 Arbitration Act, to set aside or remit an arbitrator’s award if there is “serious irregularity” which the court considers has caused, or will cause, “substantial injustice”. But what does “serious irregularity” mean? The Act lists the possibilities, one of which is an award obtained by fraud or in a way contrary to public policy. A party to an arbitration deliberately withheld from the arbitrator material that was completely inconsistent with key issues in its case. In the court’s view it was highly likely that the correspondence in question would have been material to the outcome of the arbitration, since it was contrary to the party’s case. And where the key issue was one that would potentially be affected by the material not put before the arbitrator it followed that the other party suffered a substantial injustice – namely the wrong result. In any event, the arbitrator made a costs order against that party, which must have been affected by the outcome of the application. The court therefore remitted to the arbitrator the parts of the award that were challenged so that he could consider his award in possession of the full facts.
ROI are quiet while planning their next course of action ? Thinking whether to contest the staying of costs or when to for maximum delay ? Trying to consult with lawyers Hmmmmm wonder what their reaction is ? Perhaps thinking of settling before more evidence comes out ? Fly on the wall would be good lol
https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/resources/Background%20Paper%20on%20Annulment%20April%202016%20ENG.pdf 51. The parties typically file with their written pleadings the factual and legal evidence from the original proceeding that they wish to rely on in the annulment proceeding. The record before the ad hoc Committee is usually limited to the factual evidence before the original Tribunal. However, new factual evidence could potentially be admitted.92 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Somewhere it was stated in a case that new evidence could not be used in annulment. However as seen above it obviously can be used. The statement above follows a clause that says something like if it has anything to do with evidence relied on for the award.
Lets hope they are having difficulty finding a willing team to sit on the Ad-Hoc team.I feel sure they dont like siding against each other and they must realize that our arbitors seriously screwed up. They COULD as we speak be pressing both sides to find settlement. Although dreaming I think this is well in the realms of possibility ?
This an old artticle from 2014 I have selected 2 excerps for a laugh and to show you there was a time when they thought the fiasco could possibly cost them $2b !!! http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/03/06/east-kalimantan-s-coal-mine-fiasco-and-structural-business-power.html The courage of the East Kutai government to challenge a multibillion-dollar company with extensive internatiobusiness and political networks like Churchill Mining, in particular, does not necessarily imply that the government is not concerned about investment in the region, even though this is plausible for many local governments in Indonesia due to limited capacity and accountability. There is a possibility that the Indonesian government may lose in international arbitration and thus may have to pay the $2 billion compensation.
http://www.churchillmining.com/library/file/Application%20for%20Annulment%20-%20Churchill%20%20Planet%20v%20Indonesia.pdf A reminder from an advfn poster that all posters should take the time to read this Time well spent if you have an investment Always good to refresh your memory too !
oops sorry it was the daily news from lexology that follows all parts and stages of ICSID procedures,cases , arbitration and rules . I copied from browser when page was open. Good job it takes people to their own inbox and not mine There was an article about integrity and 2 about the procedure and benefits of mediation. Anybody can sign up to lexology for the daily info sometimes interesting sometimes not but gives a useful background.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/15b89d2ee0cb3826 I found 3 articles of interest here to read while waiting
I am lucky enough to hold 2 other stocks TMAN +EEL Dont know of any of you have heard of them but they were both suspended for years so it is certainly not definate that they have to come out of suspension or delist after 6 months.
Agreed and Roi should realise if there is any justice that if we get the annulment they seriously dont have much chance and they cannot hoe that ICSID will play dumb twice ! Especially with the new evidence we would bring !
https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/resources/Background%20Paper%20on%20Annulment%20April%202016%20ENG.pdf Here are the details of the annulment process .You will see both parties will have rights to speak at certain times but it does not accept new evidence and it has nothing to do with the award which would come after the merits and quantum phases. http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw8620.pdf Our detailed application request this is what the ad-hoc team will discuss. They will be supposedly just looking at the points of law and if the decision should be annulled.and the costs stayed. IF IF we get past thos point it willl be merits and quantum and we will be allowed to produce fresh evidence.
GP back Precicely ! IF IF IF we win the annulment and ROI only have the merits and they and ICSID have been shamed I think an OOC or an award would be higher so they may be willing to talk. A wise opponent could factor in that risk and talk sooner but they are so thick skinned and pig headed I think they may wait until the last moment and pull their hair out trying to make a deal.
If you think about it it would be better for Roi to settle before [ IF ] the Stay of costs is awarded but they will probably want to fight against this ? Either ROI are intelligent and offer to settle soon but we know they are pigheaded ! After [ IF] the stay of costs are granted ROI would have their backs against the wall fearing we could be offered the full or large part of the $1.3b claim and should be desperaetly trying to settle with us.